A council has banned white people from applying for an £18,000-a-year traineeship because it wants to boost staff diversity.

The two-year scheme at Bristol City Council is only open to candidates from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the "normal recruitment process was not rectifying" under-representation.

The authority said the programme, which takes on two people a year, is lawful under race relations legislation because it is only a traineeship and does not guarantee a job at the end of it.

But one white jobseeker, who did not want to be named, said it was "totally racist" and would have been "an excellent opportunity for me to make use of the skills and qualifications that I have acquired".

He added: "But being white I am excluded from applying for the post.
"Surely equal opportunities means giving everyone an equal chance to succeed rather than discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin."

The graduate training scheme is now in it's third year and annually offers two candidates a two-year placement with the council and pays them £18,000 each a year.

The authority has a total of 9,000 members of staff of which 8,370 are white and 630, or seven per cent, are from ethnic minorities.
Because 12 per cent of Bristol residents come from minority backgrounds the council has begun searching for more employees to redress this imbalance.

Officials said the Race Relations Act 1976 allows for authorities to offer training to specific groups of people if they are under-represented
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7793539/Council-bans-white-candidates-from-training-programme.html

I'm wondering what people think of this?

I'm personally just looking for some valid arguments for discrimination. It's certainly not equality.

I never actually knew provisions for discrimination went back to the 1974 Race Relations Act. I always assumed it was a relatively new thing brought in under the Blair government.

Lara's Nemesis

02-06-10, 18:13

They call this kind of thing positive discrimination as well, the councils are the worst offenders.

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 18:15

They call this kind of thing positive discrimination as well.It's a government word for discriminating against the majority. I just call it discrimination. It doesn't matter who it's against - it's all discrimination.

Minty Mouth

02-06-10, 18:16

I always thought the equal-rights-in-the-workplace-hiring-thing was a total crock. Positive discrimination, like you said, is not equality. But what ya' gonna do? :¨/

Cochrane

02-06-10, 18:17

In my opinion, this specific measure goes too far.

However, the general idea of boosting diversity is not a bad one. If the balance of employees is biased towards the standard white male, and it usually still is, then an organization would be rather stupid if it did not try to investigate why this is the case, whether this is hurting them, and how this can be changed. Otherwise, there is a risk that company or here council culture subtly promotes an environment where members of the majority population are more likely to be hired, despite their qualifications. And if that is the case, the employer is quite obviously missing out.

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 18:23

I always thought the equal-rights-in-the-workplace-hiring-thing was a total crock. Positive discrimination, like you said, is not equality. But what ya' gonna do? :¨/I was hoping the Tories would take a stand against this sort of thing but under Cameron they don't seem strong enough. We'll have to wait and see.

In my opinion, this specific measure goes too far.

However, the general idea of boosting diversity is not a bad one. If the balance of employees is biased towards the standard white male, and it usually still is, then an organization would be rather stupid if it did not try to investigate why this is the case, whether this is hurting them, and how this can be changed. Otherwise, there is a risk that company or here council culture subtly promotes an environment where members of the majority population are more likely to be hired, despite their qualifications. And if that is the case, the employer is quite obviously missing out.I wouldn't call diversity in the work place a bad thing but at the same time I don't think it matters as much as people think it does. When it comes down to it (and this goes for all jobs), the best should be chosen.

Take MPs for example. Labour I know use all-women shortlists for selecting MP party candidates and I think the Conservatives encourage it. I still stand by my prediction that in a couple of decades time there will be laws preventing white males from trying to run for MP, all in the name of "diversity and representation". It's just the way things are going right now and I don't like it one bit. I couldn't care less if there were 4 black MPs in parliament or 400 - I want the best.

Buffy87

02-06-10, 18:25

As regards this if the job were one working with ethnic minorities then to my mind it may make sense that someone of the ethnic minority in question took the job. Maybe - but that would depend on circumstances and the type of work that was been done. In a similar vein that some women prefer seeing female doctors (or indeed men prefer seeing male doctors).For example, I know of a friend of mine ( who is Muslim) who was abused by her husband and upon leaving him and essentially escaping from him was wary of seeing male doctors or male counsellors etc. So if the job were something of that nature I could understand. I have no idea what the job in question is but those are possible scenarios where I could understand a certain type of person being hired.

Also I know it would be lawful to discriminate in a case where say a ethnic minority or indeed any minority (women for example) are unable to achieve promotion in a specific work area because they are not able to develop enough opportunities to reach senior positions, even though they have all the required skills and qualifications. In this case it would be so-called "lawful discrimination" to open a specific job/opportunity only for them to enable them to gain the experience to gain the promotion - but NOT the promotion. (I..e the job offered was not a promotion in itself but rather a course or experience based opportunity).

Another example of positive discrimination - even though I am able to travel and live in Europe ( lets say France for this particular example) due to been a member of the E.U. I would be unable to apply for certain types of jobs ( mainly in the government sector and some areas of the civil service equivalent because I am not French. Positive discrimination of this nature may make sense.

You are right when you say it is not equality - but I think it CAN be justified in SOME situations. If it is simply to "boost staff diversity" I would tend to disagree with it. It is lawful to do it in limited circumstances but I would prefer that if it is to be done there is a more justifiable - or at least understandable reason than the one they have given.

Chocola teapot

02-06-10, 18:26

What the heck?

What a way to boost discrimination,

The amount of people who say:

"They're stealing our jobs" ect is set to rise then.

Uzi master

02-06-10, 18:26

is it possible that there are just more white people qualifies for the jobs? I mean its not racist to say that, I find it discriminative for them to do it, if more white people get it that just means they were more qualified, and happenned to be white.

Rai

02-06-10, 18:26

There's two sides to this: on the one hand black or ethnic minority people have been discriminated against for many years, so, should white people now complain when one company wishes to only offer a trainee ship to coloured people? On the other hand equal rights is equal rights, meaning anyone should be able to apply. If a coloured person gets the trainee ship, then that's all good and fair, once they've been through the hiring process.

Legend of Lara

02-06-10, 18:28

That's a really stupid way to "boost diversity", to be honest.

Uzi master

02-06-10, 18:29

There's two sides to this: on the one hand black or ethnic minority people have been discriminated against for many years, so, should white people now complain when one company wishes to only offer a trainee ship to coloured people? On the other hand equal rights is equal rights, meaning anyone should be able to apply. If a coloured person gets the trainee ship, then that's all good and fair, once they've been through the hiring process.

but then why should people that have done nothing have to pay? its not their fault and I wish groups of black people women and other groups would stop complaining, especially if they have never had things happen to them.

Minty Mouth

02-06-10, 18:33

Giving someone more opportunity to get a job just because they are of a certain race is just discrimination. Discriminating against white people because they discriminated against non-whites doesn't make much sense.

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 18:38

There's two sides to this: on the one hand black or ethnic minority people have been discriminated against for many years, so, should white people now complain when one company wishes to only offer a trainee ship to coloured people? On the other hand equal rights is equal rights, meaning anyone should be able to apply. If a coloured person gets the trainee ship, then that's all good and fair, once they've been through the hiring process.The thing is that this isn't a company - it's a local council. They should know better. It's kind of saddening that this is basically allowed and in some cases encouraged.

As regards this if the job were one working with ethnic minorities then to my mind it may make sense that someone of the ethnic minority in question took the job. Maybe - but that would depend on circumstances and the type of work that was been done. In a similar vein that some women prefer seeing female doctors (or indeed men prefer seeing male doctors).For example, I know of a friend of mine ( who is Muslim) who was abused by her husband and upon leaving him and essentially escaping from him was wary of seeing male doctors or male counsellors etc. So if the job were something of that nature I could understand. I have no idea what the job in question is but those are possible scenarios where I could understand a certain type of person being hired.

Also I know it would be lawful to discriminate in a case where say a ethnic minority or indeed any minority (women for example) are unable to achieve promotion in a specific work area because they are not able to develop enough opportunities to reach senior positions, even though they have all the required skills and qualifications. In this case it would be so-called "lawful discrimination" to open a specific job/opportunity only for them to enable them to gain the experience to gain the promotion - but NOT the promotion. (I..e the job offered was not a promotion in itself but rather a course or experience based opportunity).

Another example of positive discrimination - even though I am able to travel and live in Europe ( lets say France for this particular example) due to been a member of the E.U. I would be unable to apply for certain types of jobs ( mainly in the government sector and some areas of the civil service equivalent because I am not French. Positive discrimination of this nature may make sense.

You are right when you say it is not equality - but I think it CAN be justified in SOME situations. If it is simply to "boost staff diversity" I would tend to disagree with it. It is lawful to do it in limited circumstances but I would prefer that if it is to be done there is a more justifiable - or at least understandable reason than the one they have given.That's the problem - it's lawful. You give some good examples but it's discrimination whichever way you look at it. I wouldn't mind so much if it was shared around but it's not. If people feel that there is a so called "glass barrier", more laws should be made to ensure equal opportunities.

In the end it's counter-productive as you inevitably end up turning away better candidates sometimes and it gives the extremists more credibility in the eyes of the public.

Lara's Nemesis

02-06-10, 18:49

I'm totally against discrimintaion of any sort but you have to ask yourselves why they feel the need to bring in measures like this.

Maybe ethnic minorities weren't being given a fair chance in the past and forcing it like this was the only way.

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 18:51

You'll find ethnic minorities are often against these measures for several reasons. Firstly, some of them feel that the government treats them differently to everyone else (and a lot of the time they do) and they just want to be treated the same. Secondly, it doesn't help with race relations in this country, ironically enough.

Uzi master

02-06-10, 18:51

also if there a minority then of course not as many are gonna be in the proffession or whatnot...

Cochrane

02-06-10, 18:54

I was hoping the Tories would take a stand against this sort of thing but under Cameron they don't seem strong enough. We'll have to wait and see.

I wouldn't call diversity in the work place a bad thing but at the same time I don't think it matters as much as people think it does. When it comes down to it (and this goes for all jobs), the best should be chosen.

Take MPs for example. Labour I know use all-women shortlists for selecting MP party candidates and I think the Conservatives encourage it. I still stand by my prediction that in a couple of decades time there will be laws preventing white males from trying to run for MP, all in the name of "diversity and representation". It's just the way things are going right now and I don't like it one bit. I couldn't care less if there were 4 black MPs in parliament or 400 - I want the best.
A very noble view, but we simply are not at a point where we can assume that the best would be chosen if no such laws existed. If in that city 12% of the inhabitants belong to minorities, but only 7% of the city council employees do, that would imply that people who belong to minorities are (on average) more stupid than those who donít, something I find hard to believe. In the case of gender equality, studies all over show again and again that women make less money than men in equivalent jobs and positions. Is half of the population broken and more stupid? Unlikely.

And that is not just the case in the employment area. A famous illustration is the Bechdel test (concerning gender equality), which is used on movies. To pass it, a movie has to fulfill only three criteria:
1. There have to be two (or more) women with names in it
2. They have to talk to each other at least once.
3. That conversation has to be about a topic other than a man.
It is way too crude to allow any evaluation of how a movie treats women, but nevertheless, an amazing number of movies, including ones that only came out this year, completely fail. On the other hand, there are very, very few movies that fail the opposite test ó almost any movie has two male characters talking about something other than women. Bias towards the white male is still a huge part of our culture, and while the particular idea of only hiring minorities for a certain post seems over the top, I think that over-correcting in general may be a viable short-term strategy.

is it possible that there are just more white people qualifies for the jobs? I mean its not racist to say that, I find it discriminative for them to do it, if more white people get it that just means they were more qualified, and happenned to be white.
That is a very optimistic view of the hiring process. What makes you think that there arenít any racists in the selection committee? They may not even think of themselves as racist, just have a subconscious fear of people who look different.

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 18:56

also if there a minority then of course not as many are gonna be in the proffession or whatnot...Well here the council's rationale is that because 12% of the Bristol population are from ethnic minority backgrounds yet only 7% of people working in Bristol City council are from those backgrounds that makes it right to be racist and discrimination. Silly "logic" I know but I guess that's how they see it.

jackles

02-06-10, 18:57

I would have thought that Bristol was a diverse enough place to have a wide range of candidates. The thing here is that well meaning efforts can be misguided. Maybe candidates are not choosing to follow that field or make suitable educational choices so that they can apply for the jobs. But denying part of the population the right to apply is detrimental to equal opportunities. The right candidate for any job should be the best one regardless of colour, race, gender or creed.

Rai

02-06-10, 18:59

Giving someone more opportunity to get a job just because they are of a certain race is just discrimination. Discriminating against white people because they discriminated against non-whites doesn't make much sense.

Oh I totally agree, I was just putting it out there.

The thing is that this isn't a company - it's a local council. They should know better. It's kind of saddening that this is basically allowed and in some cases encouraged.

Yes, you're right. I wasn't saying I agree with it though.

herothing

02-06-10, 19:01

Which idiot out there is letting this happen?
Everybody talks about prejudice and discrimination against black people but it seems there's no such thing as racism against white people :confused:

What is this country turning into...

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 19:02

A very noble view, but we simply are not at a point where we can assume that the best would be chosen if no such laws existed. If in that city 12% of the inhabitants belong to minorities, but only 7% of the city council employees do, that would imply that people who belong to minorities are (on average) more stupid than those who donít, something I find hard to believe.Or perhaps, by chance, a smaller percentage of people have been applying from minorities? I think the problem here is that councils all too often assume that because a council's workforce doesn't represent the population of the area that must mean there's some sort of institutional discrimination in place even though that often isn't the case.

In the case of gender equality, studies all over show again and again that women make less money than men in equivalent jobs and positions. Is half of the population broken and more stupid? Unlikely.Hence laws which make it so that women don't get paid less than men for doing the same job. This I'm not opposed to.

Bias towards the white male is still a huge part of our culture, and while the particular idea of only hiring minorities for a certain post seems over the top, I think that over-correcting in general may be a viable short-term strategyYou're probably right there, but discrimination is never the answer.

Buffy87

02-06-10, 19:05

That's the problem - it's lawful. You give some good examples but it's discrimination whichever way you look at it. I wouldn't mind so much if it was shared around but it's not. If people feel that there is a so called "glass barrier", more laws should be made to ensure equal opportunities.

In the end it's counter-productive as you inevitably end up turning away better candidates sometimes and it gives the extremists more credibility in the eyes of the public.

I agree with you. It would be better to make the laws to ensure equal opportunities rather than set up laws to deal with inequalities through creating more inequalities, if that makes sense.

In any case, when applying for a job and getting it I would like to think it is because I was the best candidate, not because I am a woman or because they haven;t got enough women with blue eyes working for them or some equally stupid reason.

And as you said in a later post - many members of the ethnic minorities are against such measures anyhow - because they of course want to feel they earned a job based upon their own merit rather than the colour of their skin or their religion.

Tombraiderx08

02-06-10, 19:06

Oh wow... this wont end well :S

Cochrane

02-06-10, 19:43

Or perhaps, by chance, a smaller percentage of people have been applying from minorities? I think the problem here is that councils all too often assume that because a council's workforce doesn't represent the population of the area that must mean there's some sort of institutional discrimination in place even though that often isn't the case.
Yeah, that is probably very likely, actually. After all, minorities still get worse education, on average, which is another problem entirely. I guess the point is that the council should not be allowed to say "OK, they just donít want to, so letís ignore them". After all, institutional discrimination may still happen without anybody being actually aware of it.

Hence laws which make it so that women don't get paid less than men for doing the same job. This I'm not opposed to.Agreed, Iím all for that. Itís problematic in areas where the employees negotiate the payment directly with the employer, I think there is still a need for more regulation in that area (although not in a way that stifles the freedom of business owners).

You're probably right there, but discrimination is never the answer.
And youíre probably right there, but I donít see any other obvious approach to solving the problem. As long as people know who the one being hired is, what gender and what color of skin, there is a chance that some, possibly a lot of them, will discriminate without even being aware of it. Giving those who are disadvantaged a free pass of sorts seems like an easy and obvious solution. The only other (and only good) solution is to train those who are in charge of hiring to be less sensitive to such issues, or to make those boards more varied.

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 19:47

Yeah, that is probably very likely, actually. After all, minorities still get worse education, on average, which is another problem entirely. I guess the point is that the council should not be allowed to say "OK, they just donít want to, so letís ignore them". After all, institutional discrimination may still happen without anybody being actually aware of it.Not over here they don't.

Ok, so you think saying "ok, let's just ignore everybody else because of their of skin color" is right?

And youíre probably right there, but I donít see any other obvious approach to solving the problem. As long as people know who the one being hired is, what gender and what color of skin, there is a chance that some, possibly a lot of them, will discriminate without even being aware of it. Giving those who are disadvantaged a free pass of sorts seems like an easy and obvious solution. The only other (and only good) solution is to train those who are in charge of hiring to be less sensitive to such issues, or to make those boards more varied.But what about employers who discriminate against white people? Not because of laws or whatever, just because they don't like them. It must happen sometimes.

I think people should be more educated about how being of a different skin color isn't bad etc but discrimination on the grounds of color is just wrong. I don't care what the situation - it's not fair and it never will be.

Cochrane

02-06-10, 20:33

Not over here they don't.
They don’t? That’s cool, hurray for Britain! Here in Germany, studies regularly show that the performance and education a child receives depends to a large degree on the social sphere of the parents — children whose parents have low-paying jobs or live on welfare generally have far worse chances of getting into university than others, and due to historic discrimination minorities are still much more likely to have such low-paying jobs. That’s something we really should be tackling, but of course our politicians are more interested in just about everything else… Anyway, my implied assumption was of course that Great Britain is the same as Germany except they drive on the wrong side of the road, or to sound more intellectual, that most western and especially western european countries do not have that large structural differences.

Ok, so you think saying "ok, let's just ignore everybody else because of their of skin color" is right?
Nope. Never have, never did, and if I said anything that implied that, it was a mistake on my part. What I meant here was that employers should not just rest and ignore minorities that don’t apply as much to jobs, but rather try and find out why they don’t, and whether it is useful and possible to change that. After all, there is a chance they might be missing out on good employees who instead opt for different careers, maybe because they fear discrimination (real or imagined) or something.

But what about employers who discriminate against white people? Not because of laws or whatever, just because they don't like them. It must happen sometimes.
Sure, and that’s bad, no argument about it. But if you look at the big picture, it is far less of a problem. There are just nowhere near as many people who discriminate against whites. That being said, if it happens (such as this case here) then it is a problem and if it can be proven, it should be dealt with exactly the same way as if it were discrimination against any other group.

I think people should be more educated about how being of a different skin color isn't bad etc but discrimination on the grounds of color is just wrong. I don't care what the situation - it's not fair and it never will be.
That’s a valid point of view, but it’s not exactly a short-term solution.

jackles

02-06-10, 20:53

Education wise the worse group are white working class boys. :(

BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7220683.stm)

The powers that be are going to have to explore initiatives to improve things.

Cochrane

02-06-10, 21:09

Education wise the worse group are white working class boys. :(

BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7220683.stm)

The powers that be are going to have to explore initiatives to improve things.

Thatís interesting, thank you! Yeah, it seems as if the government has enough stuff to do here.

Smog

02-06-10, 21:31

That's the most counter-intuitive solution to a race 'problem' I've ever heard. The very idea that they're unable to employ 'enough' black people is in itself discriminatory. Isn't this the most obvious thing in the world? :confused:

Mad Tony

02-06-10, 21:35

Education wise the worse group are white working class boys. :(But what defines working class? :tea:

Dennis's Mom

02-06-10, 22:32

This doesn't seem too much, particularly since it's not an actual job, just training. If minorities are underrepresented and it's creating a negative impression overall, then it's in the organization's interest to do what it can change that perception.

Sure, it'd be all hearts & unicorns if race didn't matter, but the truth is a lot of people carry around race baggage that must be dealt with. If a minority presence will help the council do a better job, why not?

Smog

02-06-10, 22:52

Sure, it'd be all hearts & unicorns if race didn't matter, but the truth is a lot of people carry around race baggage that must be dealt with. If a minority presence will help the council do a better job, why not?

Because it's essentially a racist system. If people carry around race baggage, then that's their problem. Employing people based on their skin colour, even if your intentions are benign, is still discriminatory. It's a disgusting idea to me that people would try to give an impression of equal opportunity by means of promoting the complete opposite. Just because there are more whites than blacks shouldn't make the former less entitled to a position, especially if White Man X is more qualified than Black Man Y.

Draco

02-06-10, 23:29

Well, the way I see it the race ratios are totally appropriate. White people bust ass to get where they are and minorities as a rule, don't have to anymore. 9 out of 10 of my former coworkers that weren't white only had a job because they weren't white, not because they were qualified.

patriots88888

02-06-10, 23:59

Affirmative action is generally good in principle but very rarely ever is in practice. What does this say about it? That the intentions may all be well and good but in the long run someone gets ****ed and ends up with the short end of the stick.

GlaÁon

03-06-10, 00:22

What strikes me as odd is this part:

The two-year scheme at Bristol City Council is only open to candidates from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the "normal recruitment process was not rectifying" under-representation.

So... non-white people aren't getting into the job when whites are also going for the same job? Is it because recruitment is racist, or there just aren't other groups wanting the job?

aktrekker

03-06-10, 00:49

Discrimination based on race and religion has been mentioned. Discrimination based on sex was also brought up. So while we're at it, let's also mention

Age discrimination.
Younger folks just out of college can't get jobs because they have a degree but no experience.
Older folks can't get a job because they have experience but no degree.
But even worse, older folks can't get jobs specifically because of their age. Resume scanning software is able to look at your year of graduation, determine your age, and 'lose' your resume based on that. And if they miss that and you get to an interview, they always end up choosing the young applicant.

So this is just one form of discrimination. It's wrong, but no worse than any other type of discrimination.

kthnxbai

03-06-10, 01:05

Well, the way I see it the race ratios are totally appropriate. White people bust ass to get where they are and minorities as a rule, don't have to anymore. 9 out of 10 of my former coworkers that weren't white only had a job because they weren't white, not because they were qualified.

Well, I don't know about your own personal experiences, but it's a little unfair to think that minorities don't work for what they have...

I'm not doubting your experiences whatsoever, but it's well known that minorities aren't as well represented in better jobs as say, middle aged white males, for one reason or another.
You look at a lot of the people who do really well in life, and they're white males...
I don't mean to say that they haven't worked for what they've gotten, but it's unfair to think that all minorities don't work hard.

Personally I'm a minority (nothing to do with race/ethnicity) but I know that things have been much harder for me than a lot of the people I'm in university with. I have received a worse education, and I have to work harder to get the same kind of respect that they do automatically.
Certainly here, and I believe in the UK and probably USA too, the general population has a very derogetory attitude towards minorities.

In my last job (I'm a student so it was just a summer job...) I was helping my boss sift through CVs and job applications, and he disregarded people who were from worse-off areas immediately... sure, this wasn't to do with race necessarily, but I'm sure the same thing happens.

This kind of thing is actually still quite present in our society as a whole, and that's the reason schemes like that exist.

It is of course, completely discriminatory to say oh only ethnic people can apply, but the idea behind it is to level the playing field a little bit... But yeah, it sucks if you're the white person who's being screwed over, but the fact is, there's always gonna be a lot of people who are gonna get left behind, and unfortunately, if you're doing badly, but you're not the worst off, you'll not get much attention from the government... if you're managing they don't give a crap about you...And, as a whole, white people are managing fine in the UK...

Also, @aktrekker

Young graduates may not get hired because they've no experience... It sucks yeah, cause you have to get a job to get experience and all that jazz, but you can't just hire a graduate when you need someone who has hands on experience... It's basically like hiring someone who isn't qualified for the job...

aktrekker

03-06-10, 02:51

You missed the real point of my post.

Draco

03-06-10, 03:16

Well the bulk of your post wasn't really about age discrimination.

aktrekker

03-06-10, 03:40

The bulk of the post was 'But even worse'. It's about age discrimination. :ton:

I'm personally just looking for some valid arguments for discrimination. It's certainly not equality.

I never actually knew provisions for discrimination went back to the 1974 Race Relations Act. I always assumed it was a relatively new thing brought in under the Blair government.

Story "By Tom Whitehead":p

Draco

03-06-10, 06:36

The bulk of the post was 'But even worse'. It's about age discrimination. :ton:

Not hiring someone because they have no experience or education is NOT age discrimination. Period.

aktrekker

03-06-10, 07:11

I guess you can't read. Sorry.

Dennis's Mom

03-06-10, 11:58

Again, for some reason the council seems to feel it's a problem for the town. Why? Is the perception that minorities are not welcome to serve? Are there large portions of the populace that are basically disenfranchised because of the lack of minority representation and perceived bias?

To eject racial baggage you've got to do more than say "get over it." The amygdala is a tenacious beast. It takes hundreds of positive interactions to overcome one negative one. If the town has a problem---and clearly the council thinks it is one---then they've got to find a way to solve it.

Mad Tony

03-06-10, 13:45

Kind of related story here.

Harriet Harman wants to set a quota on the Labour shadow cabinet so that half of the MPs that make up that cabinet are female. Clicky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10225683.stm).

This is the Labour party and not the actual government so they can discriminate all they like for all I care. However, besides being discriminatory this quota would actually mean that male Labour MPs in the House of Commons would be underrepresented while female Labour MPs would be overrepresented.

Draco

03-06-10, 16:08

I guess you can't read. Sorry.

Only apologize for not saying what you meant to say if you are going to apologize.

You imply (<- keyword btw) that young people are being discriminated against getting jobs, but then you go on to say the reason is lack of experience, which is not endemic to younger persons. You then go on to suggest that older people are being discriminated against, and then tack on that the reason is no education. Which, class, is why we deal in facts, not intimations or circumstantial truths.

The fact is you can be young and have experience and education, or neither. You can be old and have education and experience, or neither.

Your supposition that it is age discrimination based on qualifications is only possible to evidence if everyone that applies has the same education and experience and only middle aged persons get the job. Any other variables void your entire point.

Do you comprehend this?

Alive_and_Funky

03-06-10, 16:38

I'm not sure I would really class this as a form of discrimination; it comes across as some kind of warped case of political correctness if you ask me.

Forwen

03-06-10, 18:33

If the town has a problem---and clearly the council thinks it is one---then they've got to find a way to solve it.

They clearly don't have any serious problems if they're indulging in ******** of this kind.

Whoever wins, meritocracy loses.

aktrekker

03-06-10, 22:14

Do you comprehend this?

OK, comprehend this.
You focused on the first two sentences but completely ignored the bulk of the message even after I specifically pointed it out. So here it is again, all by itself, so maybe you'll actually read it this time.

But even worse, older folks can't get jobs specifically because of their age. Resume scanning software is able to look at your year of graduation, determine your age, and 'lose' your resume based on that. And if they miss that and you get to an interview, they always end up choosing the young applicant.

Draco

03-06-10, 23:28

I ignored it, because it was presumptive. Most employers would prefer older employees on principle, they tend to be more mature, stable, and reliable.